| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | Jason1972 (4)
12/13/2002 | There's too many whinebags enough as it is.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Ninja_Squirrel (0)
04/17/2002 | I would increase it to 18 *only* if they started with 3 tribes instead of two. Otherwise, 16 is perfect for now.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | LoneUSFullHouseFan (3)
03/14/2002 | I don't think this is the best idea. I personally have enough trouble following 16 people.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ErictheFederalist (3)
04/03/2001 | It will harden the competition! :-)
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | brookeg (0)
02/25/2001 | 16 contestants is a good number, but didn't Survivor 2 start with 18 this time for 42 days instead of 39 days? I think they did. But as far as getting to know the charaters, the first couple that get voted off the game you barely know anyway. I mean how well did we know Debb and Kel? Besides that, the producers have about a month and half to let us get acquainted with the characters. A few added on to 16 won't make much of a difference besides maybe in alliances and such. So, I think it's a good idea.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | alicat (3)
01/10/2001 | I think that CBS has done a great job in selecting 16 contestants. Think about it....more than 16 contestants and you would lose track of who is who, and you wouldn't care so much. Less than 16 and everyone would get on your nerves. 16 makes for the perfect number in order to keep track of everyone and do just enough character development to get to know them. Good job on the 16. Keep it the way it is.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-6 OF 6 | View All |